Sayre v. Tompkins

Decision Date31 October 1856
Citation23 Mo. 443
PartiesSAYRE, Appellant, v. TOMPKINS et al., Respondents.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

1. There is no equity to restrain by injunction the collection of a school tax, the assessment of which is illegal and void.

2. In order that a neighborhood, situated in two or more townships, may be formed into a separate school district, under section 8 of article 4 of the act of February 24th, 1853, (Sess. Acts, 1853, p. 160,) a majority of the inhabitants of the proposed district should unite in the application to the school commissioner.

Appeal from Lewis Circuit Court.

Plaintiff sought in this action to restrain Tompkins, constable, &c., from selling certain personal property of plaintiff under an assessment of a school tax, claimed by plaintiff to have been illegally made and void; also to restrain the trustees of the school district, who are made parties defendant, from taking any steps against plaintiff to collect the said tax. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and the injunction was dissolved. The finding of the facts by the court is as follows: “A neighborhood composed of portions of school townships No. 2 and No. 5, on the 25th day of February, 1854, applied to Philip Deinmett, the school commissioner, to be formed into a separate district. Within the metes and bounds of said neighborhood there resided eighty-one qualified voters, of whom nineteen united in making the application. Said commissioner appointed a time and place for holding meetings in each of said townships, and gave notice thereof. Meetings were held in each of said townships, and a majority of the qualified voters, assembled at said meetings, consented to the formation of the proposed district; that afterwards, to-wit, on the 29th day of July, 1854, at a meeting of the qualified voters of the district, thus formed, a majority of the qualified voters of said district voted to raise the sum of twelve hundred dollars for the purpose of purchasing school-house, &c. that the said A. D. Steinmett, J. D. Million, and N. C. Staples, the trustees of said district, on the 31st day of July, 1854, assessed the taxes on the taxable property of the inhabitants of said district, and issued a warrant for the collection thereof, directed to the constable of Dickerson township, and directing said constable to collect the tax so assessed; that said constable levied said warrant upon the property of the plaintiff, as stated in his bill. Upon the above finding, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the injunction in this cause be dissolved,” &c.

T. Polk, for appellant.

I. The power to levy and collect a tax, as claimed in this case, being derived exclusively from a special statute, that statute, in all its requisitions, must be strictly pursued. (Morton v. Reed, 6 Mo. 64; Reed v. Morton, 9 Mo. 868.)

II. In order to form a neighborhood, composed of two or more townships, into a school district, at least a majority of the qualified voters of such neighborhood must make application to the school commissioner of their county for this purpose. (Sess. Acts, 1853, p. 160, art. 4, sec. 8.) But here the court expressly finds that within the metes and bounds of this neighborhood there resided at the time eighty-one qualified voters, of whom, however, only nineteen united in making the application for the establishment of the school district.

III. No legal notice was given for the time and place of meeting for each township composing a part of the proposed district. The finding of the court, in this case, does not show that any such notice as is required was ever given. On the contrary, it shows that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • State v. Wood
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1900
    ...of this state. Lockwood v. City of St. Louis, 24 Mo. 20; Leslie v. Same, 47 Mo. 474; Town of Warrensburg v. Miller, 77 Mo. 56; Sayre v. Tompkins, 23 Mo. 443; Bank v. Kansas City, 73 Mo. 555. But in this case the bill negatives all idea of this inspection law affecting the property of plaint......
  • Second Nat Bank of Titusville, Pennsylvania v. Caldwell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • January 1, 1882
    ... ... 25 N.Y. 312; Weaver v ... State, 39 Ala. 535; Cook Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 35 Ill ... 460; McDonald v. Murphree, 45 Miss. 705; Sayre v. Tompkins, ... 23 Mo. 443; First Nat. Bank v. Meredith, 44 Mo. 500; Barrow ... v. Davis, 46 Mo. 394; McPike v. Pew, 48 Mo. 525 ... [ J ] ... ...
  • State ex rel. Kenamore v. Wood
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1900
    ... ... Lockwood v. St. Louis, 24 ... Mo. 20; Leslie v. St. Louis, 47 Mo. 474; ... Warrensburg v. Miller, 77 Mo. 56; Sayre v ... Tompkins, 23 Mo. 443; Bank v. Kansas City, 73 ... Mo. 555.] But in this case the bill negatives all idea of ... this inspection law ... ...
  • Wilson v. King's Lake Drainage & Levee District
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1914
    ... ... of the defendant drainage district. Savings Inst. v ... Board of Education, 75 Mo. 408; Rice v ... McClelland, 58 Mo. 116; Sayre v. Tompkins, 23 ... Mo. 443; Speer v. Board of Co. Com'rs, 88 F ... 749; Herring v. Irrigation Dist., 95 F. 705; ... Miller v. Irrigation ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT